yosys_synthesize

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns structured cell counts and warnings and maps to specific targets, but it does not mention side effects such as writing an output netlist, modifying files in cwd, potential long runtime, or failure behavior. These gaps matter for a synthesis tool with no annotation safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single densely informative sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, mentions the key target variants, and ends with the expected output. Every clause contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a useful summary but omits important operational context such as whether output_netlist is actually written, what happens with flatten, or how synthesis results are returned beyond 'cell counts and warnings.' It is adequate for a high-level agent decision but not fully complete for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about targets and outputs but does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like verilog_sources, top_module, cwd, flatten, timeout_ms, or output_netlist. It does not compensate for or extend the schema details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Synthesizes a Verilog/SystemVerilog design using Yosys') and identifies the resource and output ('returns structured cell counts and warnings'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming synthesis, target mappings, and result data, distinguishing it from latch checking, hierarchy analysis, and toolchain info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yosys_hierarchy or yosys_check_latch. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternative tools. The sibling context makes the purpose inferable, but the description itself carries no usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.